Hindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Marine Biology Volume 2011, Article ID 501465, 11 pages doi:10.1155/2011/501465

Research Article Do Not Stop: The Importance of Seamless Monitoring and Enforcement in an Indonesian Marine Protected Area

Sangeeta Mangubhai,1 Muhammad Saleh,2 Suprayitno,2 Andreas Muljadi,1 Purwanto,1 Kevin L. Rhodes,3 and Katherina Tjandra4

1 The Nature Conservancy, Indonesia Marine Program, Jl. Pengembak 2, Sanur, Bali 80228, Indonesia 2 Balai Taman Nasional Komodo, Jalan Kasimo, Labuan Bajo, Manggarai Barat, Nusa Tenggara Timur 86554, Indonesia 3 College of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resource Management, The University of Hawaii at Hilo, 200 W. Kawili Street, Hilo, HI 96720, USA 4 Jalan Pluit Samudera V/41 Jakarta Utara, Jakarta 14450, Indonesia

Correspondence should be addressed to Sangeeta Mangubhai, [email protected]

Received 30 March 2011; Revised 11 June 2011; Accepted 11 July 2011

Academic Editor: Andrew McMinn

Copyright © 2011 Sangeeta Mangubhai et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The harvesting of () in Indonesia for the live reef food fish trade (LRFFT) has been ongoing since the late 1980s. Eight sites in Komodo National Park that included two fish spawning aggregation (FSA) sites were monitored for groupers and humphead wrasse, Cheilinus undulatus, from 1998 to 2003 and from 2005 to 2008 to examine temporal changes in abundance and assess the effectiveness of conservation and management efforts. Monitoring identified FSA sites for squaretail coralgrouper, areolatus, and brown-marbled , fuscoguttatus. Both species formed aggregations before and during full moon from September to December, prior to lapses in monitoring (2003–2005) and in enforcement (2004-2005). Following these lapses, data reveal substantial declines in P. areolatus abundance and the apparent extirpation of one aggregation at one site. Other non-aggregating species targeted by the LRFFT showed similar declines at three of eight monitored sites. This paper highlights the impact of FSA fishing and the need for a seamless monitoring and enforcement protocol in areas where aggregation fishing pressure is high. Within Komodo National Park, local fishers, particularly those operating on behalf of the LRFFT, pose a serious threat to population persistence of species targeted by this trade.

1. Introduction Southeast Asian live reef food fish trade (LRFFT), which supplies live coral reef fishes to restaurants and seafood Groupers (Serranidae) and the Convention for International markets throughout Southeast Asia (e.g., [9]). Wild-caught Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Appendix II-listed groupers, such as the , Cromileptes humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) are among the most altivelis, humphead wrasse, and some species of Epinephelus vulnerable species to overfishing, because they form tem- and Plectropomus fetch prices ranging from US$2 to US$35 porally and spatially predictable fish spawning aggregations per kg in Indonesia [10], an equivalent of 0.12%–2.14% (hereafter, FSA) that are readily targeted by fishers [1–3]. In = addition to concentrating reproductive activity to set times of the total average annual income (US$1,634 per capita and locations, some FSA species have life history traits that income 2006). Hence, fishing for the LRFFT is an attractive make them especially vulnerable to over exploitation, such incentive for local Indonesian fishers but a bane to local as hermaphroditic sexual patterns and/or delayed maturity coral reef ecosystems which are seeing the rapid decline in (see [4–6]). When fishing pressure is heavy and persistent, large predatory fish and overall changes to the structure of aggregations can decline rapidly and in severe cases can be reef fish populations [11]. The primary problem with the extirpated [7, 8]. LRFFT is the targeting of FSA to meet demand [1], which Some aggregating groupers and humphead wrasse are has been widely implicated in spawning aggregation loss highly sought after by local Indonesian fishers for the and species population declines throughout the Indo-Pacific 2 Journal of Marine Biology

(e.g., [12, 13]). Indonesia, in particular, began exporting live important fish species and (b) assess the effectiveness of con- reef fish to Hong Kong in 1988 [14, 15] and by the 1990s servation and management efforts in the KNP, particularly was supplying over 50% of all live fish to Southeast Asian the enforcement of no-take zones. With the exception of markets [12]. By the late 1990s, many regions in Indonesia the KNP, there are no other known long-term datasets from experienced sharp declines in the abundance of the fish Indonesia on grouper or humphead wrasse FSA and only one targeted by the trade, and there are currently few known site-based case of the immediate effects of aggregation fishing remaining FSA. In 2000, an estimated 48,500 metric tonnes [23]. The objective of the current study was to document was exported from Indonesia, which represents a threefold changes in abundance of spawning aggregations of highly increasefromexportvolumesadecadeprior[16]. Currently, vulnerable groupers and wrasse following changes in the level the retail volume of the LRFFT within the Coral Triangle of enforcement within the KNP. region varies from 18,000–50,000 metric tons annually and is valued at >US$800 million [17]. 2. Methods Nestled in Indonesia’s Lesser Sunda Islands within the Coral Triangle, Komodo National Park (KNP) features one 2.1. Underwater Visual Census. AsreportedinPetetal., of the world’s richest and most diverse marine environments approximately 300 potential FSA sites within the KNP were surveyed between 1995 and 2000 during hundreds for corals and reef fish [18]. The 4000 residents living within of exploratory and monitoring dives [2, 19]. To protect KNP and 45,000 people living adjacent to the Park are reliant remaining fish populations from exploitation, particularly on marine resources for their daily needs, and consequently, by the live reef fish trade, the names and coordinates of there has been heavy local fishing pressure on the Park’s sites are not provided. General locations of FSA sites are coral reef fish and invertebrate populations. One of the key shown in Figure 1 in Pet et al. [2]. Eight of these sites were management objectives for KNP is to protect biodiversity selected for semimonthly monitoring and were monitored and maintain spawning stocks of commercial fishes and initially around full and new moons from March 1998 to invertebrates of local fisheries [19]. To that end, a zoning February 1999 to establish the presence of FSA. Of those system was established for KNP in 2001, which includes eight, only two sites (Sites 7 and 8) were characterized as regulations to ensure the long-term survival of the Park’s FSA sites, and monitoring continued at these sites through flora and fauna, its ecosystems, and its local communities. to 2003 and then from 2005 to 2008. Five additional sites One of the key targets of these regulations it to protect FSA (Site 1–Site 5) were monitored between 1998 and 2003, while within the KNP, placing all known sites within “no-take” three other sites (Site 6–Site 8) were monitored from 1998 to (i.e., no fishing) zones. 2006. All sites were monitored over a 3-day period around In 2005, Pet et al. [2] provided a detailed analysis full and new moon. The timing for sampling was based on of reproductive seasonality and trends in abundance and preliminary data collected during peak aggregation months individual fish length for two coaggregating species (Plec- and lunar phases for different species [24]. From January tropomus areolatus and Epinephelus fuscoguttatus)attwo 2008, monitoring was conducted only around the full moon. spawning sites identified through exploratory monitoring No data were collected from April 2003 to August 2005, when in KNP. In their paper, the authors defined a Septem- the lapse in monitoring occurred. ber through February (primary) reproductive season, with Eleven species were selected for monitoring, based on greater abundances and reproductive behavior recorded their relative abundance, known vulnerability to overfishing, during full moon periods although new moon aggregations and high economic value within the LRFFT. These included (April to July) were also noted. Both new moon (e.g., [7, 20]) the known aggregation-spawning species E. fuscogutta- and full moon aggregation formation (e.g., [21]) have been tus, and C. undulatus, camouflage grouper, Epinephelus observed elsewhere for both E. fuscoguttatus and P. areolatus polyphekadion, P. areolatus, leopard coralgrouper, Plectropo- although it is currently unclear whether reproduction occurs mus leopardus and nonaggregation or unknown aggrega- within only one or both of these two lunar periods. tion spawning species potato grouper, Epinephelus tukula, Among the many attributes of the Pet et al. [2]study, Malabar grouper, Epinephelus malabaricus, brown-spotted were abundance counts of aggregating P. areolatus and E. grouper, Epinephelus chlorostigma, highfin coralgrouper, fuscoguttatus from 1995 to 2003 that allow subsequent com- Plectropomus oligacanthus, yellow-edged lyretail, parisons. This paper builds on Pet et al. [2] by incorporating louti, blacksaddled grouper, , humpback three additional years of data (2006–2008) and an additional grouper, and C. altivelis. Among those, only two species, E. six sites and seven species not included in the original fuscoguttatus and P. areolatus, aggregated in numbers charac- assessment. The important feature of the current study is that teristic of FSA [2]. Two species (E. tukula and E. malabaricus) directly following the original Pet et al. [2] study, there was were rarely observed and have not been included in analyses. a 29-month lapse in monitoring. Additionally, from 2004 to Details of underwater visual census (UVC) methods are 2005, enforcement was at its lowest level in a decade [22], described in Pet et al. [2, 25]. Two divers entered the water allowing fishing to continue relatively unabated within the at the same GPS location, descended to a maximum depth of KNP. 30 m, and started surveys at the same spot identified in situ. The KNP monitoring program was designed by The The surveys covered a transect area of approximately 200 m Nature Conservancy in partnership with the Komodo over a 30-minute period. At least one of the two observers National Park Authority and initially intended to (a) provide was from the Park Authority and consistently participated data on temporal changes to the population of economically in the surveys over the 10-year period. Abundance counts Journal of Marine Biology 3

40 100

80 30

60 20 40 Number of fish Number of fish 10 20

0 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 Year Year (a) P. areolatus (S7) (b) P. areolatus (S8) 100 20

80 15

60 10 40 Number of fish Number of fish 5 20

0 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 Year Year (c) E. fuscoguttatus (S7) (d) E. fuscoguttatus (S8) Figure 1: Number of Plectropomus areolatus and Epinephelus fuscoguttatus recorded at fish spawning aggregation sites at full moon in Komodo National Park from March 1998 to December 2009. Only the main moon phase for fish aggregations is shown in graphs. Enforcement was at its lowest in a decade from 2004 to 2005, and no data were collected between April 2003 to August 2005. Site numbers are included in parentheses (S7 = Site 7 and S8 = Site 8). Note the differences in scale on the y-axis. and length estimations (±3 cm total length, TL) of target (or 50 ten-day trips) were conducted between 1 February species were made during a timed (30-minutes, ca. 200 m and 31 December 2007. Data were collected on all boats length) swim performed by a two-diver team. Behaviors or encountered, including the origin of fishers or dive operators, signs typically associated with spawning aggregations were GPS coordinates and primary activities being undertaken also recorded and included color change, gravid females (i.e., (dive tourism and specific fishing activities). For fishers, swollen bellies), and territoriality. Given the relatively small information was collected on gear, catch composition (fish, size of aggregations in KNP (<100 fish), all fish were recorded squid, lobsters, etc.) and catch volume (kg). Data presented and subsampling was not required. To reduce potential bias from 2007 are indicative of the level of enforcement being and variability among individual divers within and among undertaken in the years 2006 to 2008. surveys, divers were (re)trained 1-2 times annually, with intensive training when new monitors were introduced to the 3. Results program. The same monitors from the Park Authority led the monitoring over the 10-year survey period. 3.1. Fish Abundance Trends. AsreportedinPetetal.[2], increased abundance and presumed spawning were found 2.2. Enforcement and Fishing Pressure. In 2007, three 16– for both P. areolatus and E. fuscoguttatus from September 20 m vessels patrolled KNP coastal waters during daylight to December (Figure 1, Supplementary Material which hours. Each vessel had a speedboat to support surveillance is available online at doi:10.1155/2011/501465). Prior to and enforcement activities. Surveillance teams worked 10- the monitoring and enforcement lapses, abundances for P. day patrol shifts, with at least two vessels simultaneously areolatus were consistently higher (>50 fish) at Site 8 than at on patrol in the Park. Active patrols totaling 499 days Site 7 (Figures 1(a) and 1(b)), while the converse was found 4 Journal of Marine Biology for E. fuscoguttatus (Figure 1(c), Supplementary Materials). Table 1: The mean size (cm) of three species of grouper recorded Following the 29-month monitoring hiatus (2003 to 2005), in different years in Komodo National Park. Only years with 12 P. areolatus abundance declined by 93%, to less than 10 months of data are shown. The number of fish measured can fish at Site 8 during peak aggregation periods (Figure 1(b)). be found in Supplementary Materials. Asterisks indicate changes At Site 7, where abundances of P. areolatus were already between the periods before (1998–2002) and after (2005–2007) the considered depressed, continued declines occurred between lapse of enforcement that were significant. 2005 and 2007 and climaxed with a failure of aggregation Species 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2005 2006 2007 formation in both 2006 and 2008 (Figure 1(a)). Paired t-tests ∗ on maximum annual counts found significant differences in P. areolatus 53.2 49.3 50.0 49.9 48.4 47.7 47.6 44.9 abundances in P. areolatus, between the period before (1998– E. fuscoguttatus 68.8 64.8 66.7 69.6 67.1 65.9 65.3 69.1 2003) and after (2005–2008) the lapse in enforcement (P< E. polyphekadion 47.8 35.6 39.4 42.5 44.6 42.1 46.0 39.0 0.01). Mean size of fish changed significantly between the two P. leopardus 43.6 41.4 40.7 40.4 39.8 37.1 39.1 P< . periods mentioned above (t-test, 0 05). P. laevis 78.1 86.0 97.0 97.4 85.4 66.8 74.8 For E. fuscoguttatus at Site 7, a continued decline in ∗ abundance was observed between 1998 and 2003. How- P. oligacanthus 44.3 43.4 42.0 42.6 42.2 38.6 40.4 ever, following the enforcement and monitoring lapses, V. louti 42.6 36.0 37.9 39.0 38.6 36.0 45.5 abundances increased to 1998 levels. Conversely, abundance C. altivelis∗ 42.5 42.5 43.7 45.0 44.5 40.1 36.0 at Site 8 appeared relatively unchanged (max. fish = 8) C. undulates 77.6 77.7 93.3 93.6 88.6 86.8 75.4 (Figure 1(d)).ThesizerangeofbothP. areolatus and E. fuscoguttatus varied throughout the monitoring period with many species showing an overall decrease in mean size; Species such as P. laevis and V. lout i were recorded at however, the observed changes could not be definitively all sites but consistently found in low abundance (<14 fish) linked to fishing (Table 1, Supplementary Materials). Paired (Figure 2). While V. lout i or C. altivelis showed no lunar t-tests conducted on maximum annual counts did not find pattern, P. laevis abundance peaked around new moon. The significant differences in abundances in E. fuscoguttatus, highest numbers of P. laevis were recorded at Site 7 from between the period before (1998–2003) and after (2005– 1998–2003 (n = 14), yet there was a distinct decline in this 2008) the lapse in enforcement (P = 0.82). Mean size did species at Sites 6, 7, and 8 by 2005 (<5 fish). Paired t-tests not change significantly between periods in E. fuscoguttatus (P = 0.67). showed significant changes in maximum fish abundances Among the other species monitored across the eight changed between the period before (1998–2003) and after P< . survey sites, initial abundances were relatively low (<20 (2005–2008) the lapse in enforcement for V. lout i ( 0 05) P = . individuals) and varied throughout the survey by species and but not for P. laevis ( 0 08). Overall, for KNP,annual peak site. At Sites 7 and 8, abundances declined for P. leopardus, abundances (maximum number of fish observed across sites) P. laevis, and P. oligacanthus.ForP. oligocanthus at Site 8, declined or remained consistently low over 10 years, with no ca. 50 individuals were commonly observed around new species achieving abundances above 20 by 2008 (Figure 3). moon from January 2001 to January 2003, but by late 2005, P. oligocanthus had declined to <20 individuals, with 3.2. Enforcement and Fishing Pressure. A total of 1734 boats a further decrease to <10 individuals by 2006 (Figure 2). were recorded by patrols within KNP between 1 February Overall, P. oligocanthus declined by 67% across all survey and 31 December 2007 (499 patrol days and 50 patrol trips). sites. For P. leopardus, declines were also noted at Sites 3 Patrols encountered an average of 7.4 fishing boats per day in and 6. Abundances of P. leopardus were higher during new the Park (range 1–34 boats) carrying a total of 6340 fishers. moon monitoring periods. At Site 8 peaks consistent with The majority of fishers encountered within the no-take zones aggregation abundance levels were observed in August 1998 were fishing on the north and northeast corners of Komodo n = n = n = ( 84), March 2001 ( 50) and 2002 ( 59), and Island where known FSA occur and within the nearshore February 2003 (n = 46). In contrast, by 2005, no more than waters of Padar and Rinca Islands (Figure 4). The majority six individuals of any of these species was present during of fishing activities were recorded within 500 m of the coast any month, and, in many instances, no P. leopardus were within no-take zones (64.9%), while a relatively smaller observed (Figure 2). C. undulatus was present at all sites, with highest abundances (n = 21) recorded at Sites 6 and 7, percentage of fishing activities occurred within traditional particularly around new moon (Figure 2). However, by 2006, use or pelagic zones where fishing is allowed (35.1%). Sites C. undulatus abundance at Sites 6, 7, and 8 had also declined. 7 and 8 and reefs on the northeastern side of Komodo Island Increases in abundance of C. altivelus occurred at Sites 1 were heavily targeted by fishers within the Park. Of the 1734 and 2 from 2003 to 2005; however, no clear trends were fishing boats recorded between February to December 2007, evident for this or any of the other target species among sites. 709 boats (40.9%) came from villages within the Park and Paired t-tests conducted on maximum annual counts did not 1011 boats (58.3%) from villages outside the Park. Preferred find significant differences in abundances in P. oligacanthus gear types within KNP include hook and line (34.4%), (P<0.05), P. leopardus (P<0.01), C. altivelus (P<0.05), or encircling gill nets (20.7%), lift nets (“bagan”) (14.3%), and C. undulatus (P<0.05), between the period before (1998– seine nets (12.1%). Hook and line is the primary gear type 2003) and after (2005–2008) the lapse in enforcement. used by local fishers to catch groupers and humphead wrasse. Journal of Marine Biology 5

Plectropomus leopardus P. laevis P. oligacanthus 35 16 S1 S120 S1 30 14 25 12 15 20 10 8 10 15 6 10 4 5

Number of fish 5 2 0 0 0 99 00 01 02 03 99 00 01 02 03 99 00 01 02 03 35 16 S2 S220 S2 30 14 25 12 15 20 10 8 10 15 6 10 4 5

Number of fish 5 2 0 0 0 99 00 01 02 03 99 00 01 02 03 99 00 01 02 03 35 16 S3 S320 S3 30 14 25 12 15 20 10 8 10 15 6 10 4 5

Number of fish 5 2 0 0 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 35 16 S4 S420 S4 30 14 25 12 15 20 10 8 10 15 6 10 4 5

Number of fish 5 2 0 0 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 35 16 S5 S520 S5 30 14 25 12 15 20 10 8 10 15 6 10 4 5

Number of fish 5 2 0 0 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 35 16 S6 S620 S6 30 14 25 12 15 20 10 8 10 15 6 10 4 5

Number of fish 5 2 0 0 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Year Year Year Plectropomus leopardus P. laevis P. oligacanthus 35 16 S7 S720 S7 30 14 25 12 15 20 10 8 10 15 6 10 4 5

Number of fish 5 2 0 0 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Figure 2: Continued. 6 Journal of Marine Biology

100 16 80 S814 S8 S8 80 12 60 60 10 8 40 40 6 20 4 20 Number of fish 2 0 0 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Variola louti Cromileptes altivelis Cheilinus undulatus 16 S112 S120 S1 14 10 12 15 10 8 8 6 10 6 4 4 5

Number of fish 2 2 0 0 0 99 00 01 02 03 99 00 01 02 03 99 00 01 02 03 16 S210 S220 S2 14 12 8 15 10 6 8 10 6 4 5 4 2 Number of fish 2 0 0 0 99 00 01 02 03 99 00 01 02 03 99 00 01 02 03 16 S312 S320 S3 14 10 12 15 10 8 8 6 10 6 4 4 5

Number of fish 2 2 0 0 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 16 S412 S420 S4 14 10 12 15 10 8 8 6 10 6 4 4 5

Number of fish 2 2 0 0 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 Year Year Year Variola louti Cromileptes altivelis Cheilinus undulatus 16 S512 S520 S5 14 10 12 15 10 8 8 6 10 6 4 4 5

Number of fish 2 2 0 0 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 16 S612 S620 S6 14 10 12 15 10 8 8 6 10 6 4 4 5

Number of fish 2 2 0 0 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Figure 2: Continued. Journal of Marine Biology 7

16 S712 S720 S7 14 10 12 15 10 8 8 6 10 6 4 4 5

Number of fish 2 2 0 0 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 16 S812 S820 S8 14 10 12 15 10 8 8 6 10 6 4 4 5

Number of fish 2 2 0 0 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Year Year Year

NM NM NM Figure 2: Graphs showing the changes in abundance of grouper and Napoleon wrasse species in Komodo National Park at sites monitored from 1998 to 2003 (n = 5) and from 1998 to 2006 (n = 3). Enforcement was at its lowest in a decade from 2004 to 2005. Note the differences in scale on the y-axis. S1–S2 (Sites 1–Sites 8) refers to different sites. Grey bars: full moon data, lines: new moon data. Only the most dominant moon phase is presented in graphs, where it was obvious from the data. Overall percentage declines for target species before and the period of reduced enforcement were Plectropomus areolatus (76.9%), Ephinephelus fuscoguttatus (6.9%), P. leopardus (84.3%), P. oligocanthus (66.9%), Cheilinus undulatus (62.1%), Variola louti (79.5%), Cromileptis altivelis (65.2%), P. laevis (33.3%), and E. polyphekadion (46.2%).

140 unregulated fishing can cause FSA loss and/or abundance declines among targeted commercial species. Specifically, 120 peak abundances following the lapses in monitoring and 100 enforcement (across sites and years) declined 6.9%–84.3% (57.9 ± 25.1%, mean ± SD) overall for targeted species 80 and 55.3 ± 30.8% (mean ± SD) for aggregating species (Figure 3). 60 For KNP, these impacts are particularly pronounced, ff 40 since the sites a ected were the only identified aggregations within the Park and among the few known remaining 20 grouper FSA sites within Indonesia [23]. In contrast to Maximum number of fish recorded other regional locales where grouper aggregations commonly 0 8 8 contain 100s or 1000s of individuals (e.g., [7, 13, 23, 199 2004 2005 2002 2006 1999 2000 2001 2003 2007 200 26, 27]), P. areolatus aggregations in the KNP appeared Year relatively depauperate even during initial monitoring. Given

∗ ∗ the current level of impact to these aggregations, a substantial P. areolatus V. lout i recovery period, likely in the order of decades, will be needed E. fuscoguttatus C. altivelis∗ ∗ if populations are to be restored [28].ThelossofbothP. P. leopardus P. laevis P. oligacanthus∗ E. polyphekadion areolatus aggregations in KNP adds to decadal declines in C. undulatus∗ reproductive stocks from unreported and unregulated com- mercial fishing in Indonesia that has left few reproductively Figure 3: The maximum number of fish recorded in each year viable aggregations. Following 20 years of activity by the (across sites) for eight species of grouper and Napoleon wrasse in LRFFT in Indonesia, the country still has no regulations in Komodo National Park. Enforcement was at its lowest in a decade place that could be applied to the LRFFT or to govern the from 2004 to 2005. Asterisks indicate significant differences in industry. Operating standards and best practices are not well maximum fish counts between periods 1998–2003 and 2005–2008, documented [17]. for individual species. In contrast to P. areolatus, E. fuscoguttatus FSA appeared to be less impacted by the enforcement lapse. The observed variation in the impact from fishing between P. areolatus 4. Discussion and E. fuscoguttatus has been observed elsewhere (K. Rhodes, unpublished data). The preference among Asian diners and The current study highlights the importance of consistent, higher prices paid by the LRFFT for P. areolatus and P. long-term monitoring and enforcement of marine pro- leopardus relative to E. fuscoguttatus may be at least partly tected areas (MPAs) and illustrates the rapidity with which responsible for the observed disparity [9]. In addition to 8 Journal of Marine Biology

119◦10 119◦20 119◦30 119◦40 119◦50

8◦20 8◦20

Komodo National Park

8◦30 8◦30

Komodo

Flores

Padar 8◦40 8◦40

Rinca

8◦50 (kilometers) 8◦50 20 0 20

N

119◦10 119◦20 119◦30 119◦40 119◦50

Fishing boats Use zone No-take zone Land Figure 4: GPS positions of boat-based fishing activities in Komodo National Park from recorded between February to December 2007. The different zones where fishing is allowed are shown as a single “use” zone. price and preference, differences in depth distribution and Enforcement records show no patrol days in 2004 and feeding behavior may have also affected the vulnerability of only 59 patrol days in 2005; the lowest records over a 10- E. fuscoguttatus to fishing. The species appears less prone year period [22, Figure 4]. During lapses in monitoring to hook and line fishing during aggregation periods and and in enforcement, no-take zones throughout KNP became is typically found deeper (15–40 m) than P. areolatus (3– more accessible to both local and outside fishers. Despite 15 m) (A. Muljadi, personal observation). Similar differences considerable efforts by the Park Authority and the non- in depth preferences have been observed in these two species profit organization Putri Naga Komodo to socialize and at sites at Manus, Papua New Guinea [29], Pohnpei [21], and implement the zoning plan, noncompliance within no-take Ayau Island, Indonesia (J. Wilson, personal communication). zones continues and is one of the greatest challenges faced In general, impacts from fishing varied among species by managing agencies. Enforcement data showed 64.9% of and sites, with the greatest impacts noted among highly boats encountered during patrols were fishing in no-take prized coralgrouper (Plectropomus spp.) and C. undula- zones. Prosecutions have been made for illegal destructive tus, with the most pronounced impacts within FSA sites. fishing methods, such as cyanide and bomb fishing, but Surveillance and enforcement data identified a number of little is done to prosecute fishers caught fishing within the illegal fishing activities at, or close to, grouper FSA sites no-take zones that have been in place since 2001. Dive throughout the year (Figure 4). The spatial pattern of fishing operators report that unrestricted nighttime fishing occurs in boats suggests that groupers were vulnerable both within northern Komodo near FSA sites when patrols leave the area aggregation sites and adjacent habitats, where home range to anchor in secluded bays. Clearly, overall enforcement is habitats and migratory corridors likely occur for these ineffective as illustrated by these reports of noncompliance in species (e.g., [3, 21, 27]). combination with in situ fish abundance trends. This pattern Journal of Marine Biology 9 of poor enforcement of no-take zones (marine reserves) is available that allow the integration of a formal management characteristic of many MPAs in Indonesia [30, 31]andof framework with community-based management [35, 36]. MPAs in general [32]. For KNP, a clear change in the financial and governance Socioeconomic theory of compliance explains that deter- structure is needed to promote greater conservation of rence is based on the probability of detection and the cer- the Park’s resources. In addition to these changes, more tainty of penalty compared to the gains from illegal activities focused patrols and enforcement, with greater penalties for (or noncompliance) [33]. In addition, other factors may noncompliance, are needed. Coupled with enforcement is be important in contributing to compliance in MPAs, such the need for stronger economic incentives, a reduction in as perception of legitimacy, moral and personal values of illegal gains and greater penalties, and a clearer relationship individuals, fairness in how benefits and costs are distributed, between compliance and community benefits from the demonstration of the socioeconomic improvement of coastal tourism and fisheries sectors. communities, and availability of alternative livelihoods [29– Finally, it is important to appreciate that apparently 31]. In the case of KNP, there are no penalties enforced even a brief interruption or lapse/reduction of enforcement for fishing in no-take zones, and fishers profit from selling ff their fish to the rapidly expanding local markets in Labuan of an, MPA can lead to dramatic declines. In e ect there Bajo, adjacent to the Park. Some alternative livelihoods were only two potential aggregation periods during which have been provided, but these are not sufficient to make a there was little to no enforcement, yet enforcement lapses meaningful impact to a population of 20,000 living within allowed enough of an increase in fishing activity to markedly and surrounding KNP. reduce abundance and one FSA and decimate another. For Indonesia, the economic impacts from the loss of FSA This is a strong reminder that consistent vigilance and and the impact of illegal fishing are significant though poorly effective community buy-in to management schemes is key understood. For example, 28,000 tourists currently visit KNP, to fisheries management. It also appears increasingly likely with entrance fees alone bringing in $420,000 per year (R. that all grouper and humphead wrasse fisheries need to be Djohani, personal communication). The economic value of stopped for an extended period in Indonesia to allow for certain large fish species, such as groupers and sharks, is population recovery if fisheries managers are serious about substantial for KNP tourism [34] but is not fully understood the conservation and management of these fish species. The by managers/policy makers and local communities. One failure to manage the trade and limit illegal fishing is endan- likely driver of noncompliance is the paucity of revenue gering coral reef ecosystem function through the removal of sharing from tourism activities with local communities, top predators [11] and imperiling Indonesia’s economic and including entry fees. Many of the visiting dive operators food security. However, any additional measures are likely to ff are foreign-owned with outside sta and little investment fail without greater community awareness and buy-in that in local communities. To remedy this situation, KNP may includes a greatly revised fee structure, in the case of KNP, benefit from a structure similar to that developed for Raja focused more on revenue sharing. In geographically remote Ampat, Eastern Indonesia. In Raja Ampat revenues generated areas where national, provincial, or regency institutions through a tourism entrance fee system is distributed as are weak or inadequately resourced, alternative mechanisms follows: 30% of revenues goes to the government, 28% of management, including nonformal rules, may have a to local communities conservation initiatives within MPAs, stronger influence on social behavioral chance. In regions 28% to community well-being within the Regency, and 14% to the direct administration and management of the fund. where enforcement is inadequate, community-managed To date revenues generated from tourism in Raja Ampat areas may be best for achieving conservation/fisheries goals have provided support for community patrols within MPAs or objectives [36, 37]. and food supplements to clinics for mothers and infants. This model provides clear and tangible benefits to local Acknowledgments communities and is one of a range of incentives to ensure compliance with fisheries regulations relating to destructive This collection of this data was possible through a long col- fishing practices. laboration between Komodo National Park Authority, The Community comanagement of marine resources and Nature Conservancy, and Putri Naga Komodo. A number of clear mechanisms for determining territorial user rights to people helped collect this data including Y. Jenata, Fajarudin, zones where fishing is allowed have been discussed but has F. Wowor, C. Subagyo, and Sudarsono. The authors would not yet materialized in KNP. Given the lack of community like to acknowledge P. Mous, J. Pet, G. Wiadnya, and J. buy-in for KNP (as demonstrated by local communities R. Wilson who provided technical support to monitoring both within and surrounding the Park fishing in no-take staff over many years and A. Harvey for providing 2008 zones), the long-term conservation of the Park will require data. They are grateful to P. Kareiva, R. Lalasz, and A. greater empowerment and revenue sharing with commu- White for kindly reviewing this paper and the inputs of nities, including participating in patrols. Currently, there our anonymous reviewers. Funding was generously provided are little benefits of communities “doing the right thing” by the GEF International Finance Corporation, The Nature and following zoning regulations relating to fishing. There Conservancy, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Aus- are clear opportunities for greater comanagement in MPAs tralian Government’s Regional Natural Heritage Program, across Indonesia. Institutional and legal mechanisms are USAID, and private donors. 10 Journal of Marine Biology

References [16] L. Pet-Soede, H. Horuodono, and Sudarsono, “SARS and the live food fish trade in Indonesia: some anecdotes,” SPC Live [1] Y. Sadovy and M. L. Domeier, “Are aggregation-fisheries Reef Fish Information Bulletin , vol. 12, pp. 3–9, 2004. sustainable? Reef fish fisheries as a case study,” Coral Reefs, vol. [17] G. Muldoon, R. Cola, and L. Pet-Soede, Towards a more 24, no. 2, pp. 254–262, 2005. Sustainable Live Reef Food Fish Trade in the Coral Triangle: First [2] J. S. Pet, P. J. Mous, A. H. Muljadi, Y. J. Sadovy, and L. Squire, Regional Workshop, World Wide Fund for Nature—Indonesia “Aggregations of Plectropomus areolatus and Epinephelus Program, Bali, Indonesia, 2009. fuscoguttatus (groupers, Serranidae) in the Komodo National [18] M. Berger and E. Turak, A Rapid Ecological Assessment of the Park, Indonesia: monitoring and implications for manage- Reef Fishes and Scleractinian Corals of Komodo National Park, ment,” Environmental Biology of Fishes, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 209– Indonesia in 2005, The Nature Conservancy, Bali, Indonesia, 218, 2005. 2008. [3] P. L. Colin, “Aggregation and spawning of the humphead [19] PHKA and TNC, “25 Year Master Plan for Management, wrasse Cheilinus undulatus (Pisces: Labridae): general aspects Komodo National Park,” in Book 1. Management Plan,J. of spawning behaviour,” Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 76, no. 4, S. Pet and C. Yeager, Eds., pp. 1–85, Ministry of Forestry, pp. 987–1007, 2010. Department of Nature Protection and Conservation, Jakarta, [4] J. H. Choat, C. R. Davies, J. L. Ackerman, and B. D. Mapstone, Indonesia, 2000. “Age structure and growth in a large teleost, Cheilinus [20] R. J. Hamilton, Y. S. de Mitcheson, and A. Aguilar-Perera, “The undulatus, with a review of size distribution in labrid fishes,” role of local ecological knowledge in the conservation and Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 318, pp. 237–246, 2006. management of reef fish spawning aggregations,” in Reef Fish [5] Y. Sadovy, M. Liu, and S. Suharti, “Gonadal development in Spawning Aggregations: Biology, Fisheries and Management,Y. a giant threatened reef fish, the humphead wrasse Cheilinus S. de Mitcheson and P.L. Colin, Eds., Springer, Dordrecht, The undulatus, and its relationship to international trade,” Journal Netherlands. of Fish Biology, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 706–718, 2010. [21] K. L. Rhodes and M. H. Tupper, “The vulnerability of [6] K. L. Rhodes, B. M. Taylor, and J. L. McIlwain, “Detailed reproductively active squaretail coralgrouper (Plectropomus demographic analysis of an Epinephelus polyphekadion areolatus) to fishing,” Fishery Bulletin, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 194– (Bleeker, 1849) spawning aggregation and fishery,” Marine 203, 2008. Ecology Progress Series, vol. 421, pp. 183–198, 2010. [22] A. Harvey, A. Pasya, and H. Yusamandra, Surveillance and [7] R. E. Johannes, L. Squire, T. Graham, Y. Sadovy, and H. Enforcement in Komodo National Park: Long-Term Trends Renguul, Spawning Aggregations of Groupers (Serranidae) in 1985–2009, The Nature Conservancy and PT Putri Naga Palau, The Nature Conservancy Marine, 1999, Research Series Komodo, Bali, Indonesia, 2010. Publication No. 1. [23] J. Wilson, K. L. Rhodes, and C. Rotinsulu, “Aggregation fishing [8] A. Aguilar-Perera, “Disappearance of a Nassau grouper and local management within a marine protected area in spawning aggregation off the southern Mexican Caribbean Indonesia,” SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin, vol. 19, coast,” Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 327, pp. 289–296, pp. 7–13, 2010. 2006. [24] J. S. Pet, P. J. Mous, K. Rhodes, and A. Green, “Grouper [9] Y. J. Sadovy, T. J. Donaldson, T. R. Graham et al., While Stocks and Napoleon wrasse spawning aggregation sites in Komodo Last: The Live Reef Food Fish Trade, Asian Development Bank, National Park,” Monitoring Report 1998–1999, The Nature Manila, Philippines, 2003. Conservancy, Bali, Indonesia, 1999. [10] A. Fauzi, “Indonesian live reef fish industry: status, problems [25] J. S. Pet, P. J. Mous, K. Rhodes, and A. Green, “Introduction to and possible future direction,” in Economics and Marketing of monitoring of spawning aggregations of three grouper species the Live Reef Fish Trade in Asia-Pacific, B. Johnston and B. from the Indo-Pacific. A manual for field practitioners,” Yeeting, Eds., pp. 74–86, ACIAR, Canberra, Australia, 2006, 2006, The Nature Conservancy Coral Triangle Center, Bali, ACIAR Working Paper No. 60. Indonesia, 2006. [11] S. J. Campbell and S. T. Pardede, “Reef fish structure and [26] J. Robinson, M. Samoilys, and P. Kimani, “Reef fish spawning cascading effects in response to artisanal fishing pressure,” aggregations in the Western Indian Ocean: current knowl- Fisheries Research, vol. 79, no. 1-2, pp. 75–83, 2006. edge and implications for management,” in Ten Years after [12] R. E. Johannes and M. Riepen, Environmental, Economic and Bleaching—Facing the Consequences of Climate Change in the Social Implications of the Live Reef Fish Trade in Asia and Indian Ocean. CORDIO Status Report 2008,D.O.Obura,J. the Western Pacific, The Nature Conservancy and the Forum Tamelander, and O. Linden, Eds., pp. 263–276, Coastal Oceans Fisheries Agency, Bali, Indonesia, 1995. Research and Development in the Indian Ocean/Sida-SAREC, [13] R. J. Hamilton, M. Matawai, T. Potuku et al., “Applying Mombasa, Kenya, 2008. local knowledge and science to the management of grouper [27] N. Hutchinson and K. L. Rhodes, “Home range estimates aggregation sites in Melanesia,” SPCLiveReefFishInformation for squaretail coralgrouper, Plectropomus areolatus (Ruppell Bulletin , vol. 14, pp. 7–19, 2005. 1830),” Coral Reefs, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 511–519, 2010. [14] P. W. S. Chan, “Current status of live reef fish trade in Hong [28] G. R. Russ and A. C. Alcala, “Decadal-scale rebuilding of Kong,” SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin, vol. 7, pp. 8–9, predator biomass in Philippine marine reserves,” Oecologia, 2000. vol. 163, no. 4, pp. 1103–1106, 2010. [15] S. Koeshendrajan and T. T. Hartono, “Indonesian live reef fish [29] R. J. Hamilton and M. Matawai, “Live reef food fish trade industry: status, problems and possible future direction,” in causes rapid declines in the abundance of squaretail coral- Economics and Marketing of the Live Reef Fish Trade in Asia- grouper (Plectropomus areolatus) at a spawning aggregation Pacific, B. Johnston and B. Yeeting, Eds., pp. 74–86, ACIAR, site in Manus, Papua New Guinea,” SPC Live Reef Fish Canberra, Australia, 2006, ACIAR Working Paper No. 60. Information Bulletin, vol. 16, pp. 13–18, 2006. Journal of Marine Biology 11

[30] J. Alder, N. A. Sloan, and H. Uktolseya, “A comparison of man- agement planning and implementation in three Indonesian marine protected areas,” Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 179–198, 1994. [31] B. R. Crawford, A. Siahainenia, C. Rotinsulu, and A. Sukmara, “Compliance and enforcement of community-based coastal resource management regulations in North Sulawesi, Indone- sia,” Coastal Management, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 39–50, 2004. [32]C.Mora,S.Andrefou´ et,M.J.Costelloetal.,“Coralreefsand¨ the global network of marine protected areas,” Science, vol. 312, no. 5781, pp. 1750–1751, 2006. [33] J. G. Sutinen and K. Kuperan, “A socio-economic theory of regulatory compliance,” International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 26, no. 1-3, pp. 174–193, 1999. [34] H. J. Ruitenbeek, “An economic analysis of the spawning aggregation function in Komodo National Park, Indonesia,” SPCLiveReefFishInformationBulletin, vol. 9, pp. 13–16, 2001. [35] J. Clifton, “Prospects for co-management in Indonesia’s marine protected areas,” Marine Policy, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 389– 395, 2003. [36] M. Glaser, W. Baitoningsih, S. C. A. Ferse, M. Neil, and R. Deswandi, “Whose sustainability? Top-down participation and emergent rules in marine protected area management in Indonesia,” Marine Policy, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1215–1225, 2010. [37] T. R. McClanahan, M. J. Marnane, J. E. Cinner, and W. E. Kiene, “A comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management,” Current Biology, vol. 16, no. 14, pp. 1408–1413, 2006. International Journal of Peptides

Advances in BioMed Stem Cells International Journal of Research International International Genomics Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Virolog y http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of Nucleic Acids

Zoology International Journal of Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of The Scientific Signal Transduction World Journal Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Genetics Anatomy International Journal of Biochemistry Advances in Research International Research International Microbiology Research International Bioinformatics Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Enzyme International Journal of Molecular Biology Journal of Archaea Research Evolutionary Biology International Marine Biology Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014